Featured Articles

Comrade Krieger and the Kiev Campaign

I’d like to introduce “Comrade Krieger,” a soldier who was deployed into Ukraine in the early days of the special operation. Comrade Krieger is, quite obviously, a nom de guerre of this young man. I spoke to him to get his account of what went down during the push to Kiev. He is currently not deployed and filling up on shashlik and Vitamin D at his dacha. Like many of the young men who actually serve Russia, he does not hail from a big city and his attitudes and beliefs are fairly consistent with what you would expect from young patriotic Russians in the hinterland. I’ve broken up his story into parts, and I’ve tweaked it here and there to make the story flow, while trying to translate the Russian tone as much as the actual Russian words used. Comrade Krieger is an unapologetic Russian nationalist patriot.

My name is Comrade Krieger, and I serve in the National Guard, the internal army as it were, and my story begins on the 12th February in Russia, when I was called up to take part in a military training exercise. These are fairly standard practice, and most of the time we get together to brush up on old skills and learn a few new tricks as well.

This time around, we spent our days learning how to set up field camps, doing routine ammo checks, cleaning our kits, “yes sir, no sir.” go over there and fetch that and come back — just getting into the rhythm of regular army life and that sort of thing.

But then, suddenly, we were told to load up the vehicles and to move out. Where to? We didn’t know, but we took it all in stride.

As we were driving along, we couldn’t help but notice that we’d crossed the border into Belarus. There was no checkpoint or anything, it was as smooth and easy as pulling into a parking lot, really. It was my first time in Belarus, and even if we hadn’t seen the sign, we certainly noticed that the weather was warmer, and everything was generally better maintained and cleaner.

At this point, no one had told us where we were going, but we had started to suspect that this wouldn’t be a routine drill when they started handing out real ammo. We stopped in a field somewhere in Belarus, near a large forest and set up camp. The OMON guys and the Chechens had already started fires and we followed suit, getting as comfy as we could. Our commander dropped a hint that things were about to get very interesting.

Night came and we finally got confirmation that at 5am the next day we were heading into Ukraine and that at 8pm we’d be in Kiev. We tried to sleep as best we could, but you know how that goes. Anyways, morning came and we got into our vehicles and rolled out.

We were supposed to cross some pontoon bridge along the border with Belarus and Ukraine, but it turned out that it was blown up before we got there, so we returned to camp and spent the day there. The next day, another attempt was made to cross a river, possibly the same one. We got into our vehicles as usual, but turned back halfway — the bridge had been blown up again. When we returned to camp, we were amused more than we were disgruntled or anything like that. Finally, the decision was made that we would simply cross at another point, across the land border. We re-entered our vehicles and set out and got about 100 kilometers behind us before we had a blowout.

We fixed the wheel soon enough and, finally, after many false starts, started our adventure in Ukraine.

I sat in the back and watched from the back window, where I saw a shot-up and abandoned car — one of ours — come into view. It turns out that the advance column had gotten hit by sniper fire and the driver of the vehicle had been killed. Shortly after, our commander decided to play it safe and told us to close up the windows. The car started getting incredibly hot and we started sweating and cooking in our seats. To make matters worse, because of all the false starts, we were now running low on water.

It was an armored car, by the way. I had trained in the Urals before, but this was a newer version – an Ural VV, 2019 model.

Soon after, our commander relented and the windows reopened just in time for us to see the first villages and towns, some which were on fire and a smattering of corpses along the road.

“How are you feeling?” I asked my friend sitting next to me.

“I’m a bit shook,” he replied. “And you?”

“Me, I’m not. I’m excited,” I replied and gave him a grin.

We pulled over to let some columns pass ahead of us because, technically, we weren’t supposed to be on the front lines. After all, we were just the National Guard. The rules of this special operation were a bit unclear, and no one seemed to understand how exactly this whole thing was supposed to work out. But that didn’t bother us much.

We ended up camping in the field for a few days where we had pulled over to let the column pass.

We found some water at a well, which was a relief and shared rumors that had passed up from the front from the people who had gone on ahead. The column that we had just seen had gotten shot up by 40mm guns (АГС) and those were the first losses from our side that I personally heard about.

We weren’t far from a village and as we began to dig in, we were given more equipment. I was given a sniper rifle and told to do my best with it.

I should probably say a few words about my kit at this point. I had a ВСС Винторез (VSS Vintorez):

And a СВД (Dragunov sniper rifle):

Also, I had a standard Ярыгина (MP-443 Grach):

I decided to get my sleeping bag and put it on the BTR as a cushion so that I could be comfy while also perched at a higher vantage point. But just as I finished setting up, the commander told us that we have to move out, and that people in black were seen nearby. The problem with this information was that we didn’t know what to make of it. See, our OMON guys also wear black. So no one knew who it was and the commander, after some deliberation, ordered a few of us to go out and to ask them, “hello, who are you?”

Our lads jogged off in the direction that the commander had indicated and then came hurrying back.

It wasn’t OMON. And it turns out that the Ukrainians had been sitting on the other side of the same village where we had made camp since we arrived — we simply hadn’t noticed one another. Both sides began firing at each other soon after. I ran to the BTR and got up on the side to get a view of the forest and the clearing. I couldn’t see anything, but the shooting continued. Eventually, I had to hop off as the BTR rolled out to take some shots at the men in black from the other side of the village.

I quickly realized that I had a slight problem to deal with. See, we had these regular, standard-issue helmets and I had a sniper rifle. That meant I couldn’t use the optics while wearing it because the visor got in the way. So, naturally, I took my helmet off and lowered my eye to the scope. My sergeant, who was running by my position saw this and ordered me to put my helmet back on immediately. I told him, “yes, sir,” but as soon as he had finished dressing me down I took it off again, and propped my gun on it.

Almost as soon as the shooting started, it came to a stop though. It was unclear what had happened, but new orders came through. We were told to move on to a new village, so we packed up and rolled out again. This time around, as soon as we reached the village, we began knocking on doors and asking the locals if they saw any soldiers in their village or nearby. They said no, and we left it at that. We didn’t bully or harass them in any way. Soon after, we left again.

Next, we rolled into a small town still further south. We were running low on supplies and so we went looking in the stores, but found that they were already thoroughly looted. There were no products left except frozen mush in the freezers that had spoiled. The town had lost its electricity and gas and the people were suffering from this worse than we were. Luckily, we found some potatoes and pickles and ate our fill.

We didn’t stay in the town and moved back into the fields. While we were setting up a camp, news filtered in that the forward columns had moved away to a different sector and that we were the only ones left in the area. To make matters worse, we were told that a counterattack was coming. We asked many questions, but got even fewer answers. One thing we did learn was that the counterattack was expected that night. So we dug in as fast as we could, and did the best we could with our defenses. Evening came and we sat in our foxholes and near our vehicles with our weapons ready, stressed out, sure that the fighting would start soon. Every second felt like the moment when the war would finally begin for us.

But we heard only silence and the regular noises of the field as the night dragged on.

Finally, the order was given to go check out what was going on in the forest near our position from which we expected the counter-attack to come and we rose to make our patrol. Just as we did so, the locals in the village about 300 meters away from us decided to launch some fireworks. We thought it was a signal to commence an attack and we rushed back to our positions and gripped our weapons tightly.

But nothing came.

We started to relax ever so slightly until we noticed a red glow coming from the village. “This is it,” I thought to myself and sweated some more. But it turned out that a fire had started in someone’s house. Possibly from the fireworks.

Another false start.

Some of the soldiers began to nod off, but then an explosion ripped through the night and we jolted back to readiness. “This time for sure,” I thought. But we got word that a boiler in that same village had exploded.

So again, nothing.

Night passed into morning and no counter-attack came. We sat in our positions, blinking and yawning and waited impatiently for new orders.

Heroines of the Hive-Mind: How Two Slush-Brained White Women Unconsciously Expose the Idiocies and Evils of Leftism

When you look in the dictionary under the word “airhead,” you won’t find a photograph of the Guardian writer Zoe Williams. But there should be one. If the right-wing Ann Coulter is the witty, insightful, tough-minded exception to the rule of female punditry, then the left-wing Williams is the vapid, conformist, slush-brained quintessence. On the rare occasions I read anything by Williams, I always find one question hammering urgently in my brain: “Does she get paid for this?”

Zoe Williams, the slush-brained quintessence of female punditry

Well, yes, she does. She gets paid a lot. That’s how she funds her comfortable, bourgeois and very White existence, far from the brown-skinned rape-gangs and black-skinned acid-throwers with whom leftists like her have enriched the lives of working-class Whites. In May 2022 that urgent question hammered again in my brain, because another of those rare occasions arrived and I read something by Williams. She was at her slush-brained best, celebrating the herd-think of the Hive-Mind as she described her attendance at the Bath festival of books:

I’m sure rightwingers read books. But you’ll never meet one at a literary festival

… There is one specific thing I love about book festivals. It’s a convention that you have to spend the first five or even 10 minutes pretending to think the audience are politically neutral. You enter into the charade of thinking these are just regular, respectable people, who may disagree with the government but equally, may agree with it; they may be remainers, they may be leavers; they may be left, they may be right. Just think of them as shareholders, except instead of buying shares, they buy books.

Yet this is the absolute opposite of the truth. You will never meet a group of people more consistent in their views, and not because most of them also go to the same pilates class. Every man jack of them voted remain, and they are considerably more leftwing than those at any meeting of any political party. … The audience absolutely hate being politically misidentified, and they spend those first 10 minutes desperately signalling, with spontaneous clapping and foot-stamping, to indicate that nobody hates the government more than they. …

The atmosphere, it probably goes without saying, is electrifying. (I’m sure rightwingers read books. But you’ll never meet one at a literary festival, The Guardian, 17th May 2022)

Yes indeed, for Guardianistas, it probably does go without saying that it’s “electrifying” to be part of a mass display of leftist narcissism, conformism and virtue-signalling. But in fact, there were two very important and interesting political questions in that article. True to form, Zoe Williams never realized that they were there and never explicitly addressed them. The first question is this: How could the slush-brained Williams be sure that “every man jack” of the attendees was as hummingly hive-minded as she is? She couldn’t, of course. Although Western leftists long to realize Orwell’s dystopian nightmares and directly monitor the brain for crime-think, they can’t actually do that yet. Like the securicrat goons of North Korea, all they can go on is outward behavior.

BLM is a cretinous protection-racket

But Williams didn’t consider any possible mismatch between outward behavior and inward opinion at the literary festival. She never asked herself if there might be crime-thinkers in that “desperately signalling,” “spontaneous[ly] clapping and foot-stamping” crowd. She never saw an uncomfortable parallel with the torrential applause that “spontaneously” greets the speeches of tyrants like Stalin, with every member of the audience fearful to be the first to stop clapping. She’s an airhead and she didn’t wonder why the crowds at leftist lit-festivals “absolutely hate being politically misidentified.”

But just ask yourself what would happen if someone at such a festival admitted to voting for Brexit. Or if someone pointed out, with full facts and figures, that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a cretinous protection-racket that has brought about a massive increase in the murder of Blacks by other Blacks. Obviously, that crime-thinker would be punished with immediate loss of reputation and livelihood. If you hum with the Hive-Mind, all’s well. If you break from the Hive-Mind, you’ll be severely stung. But Zoe Williams finds it “electrifying” to attend a lit-festival where any possible dissidents would be frightened, with very good reason, to express a heterodox opinion.

Suppressing facts, silencing dissent

Now let’s address the second important topic in Williams’ article and suppose that she was entirely right about the conformism of the crowd. “Every man jack” of the attendees was indeed as hummingly hive-minded as she is. But would that be a good thing? Has any ideology ever been entirely right in every way? Have left-wingers absolutely nothing to learn from right-wingers and absolutely nothing to gain from debate and dissent? Zoe Williams and similar airheads apparently think so. As the Hive-Mind hums, so hum they.

But the leftist herd-think of lit-festivals isn’t a good thing, of course. Leftists aren’t infallible or omniscient, but that’s precisely why they are so eager to suppress inconvenient facts and silence dissident voices. The IngSoc — “English Socialism” — of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) had achieved the leftist ideal and was able to control and alter the minutest details of “every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.” As Orwell ironically notes: “Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date.”

Horror and hyperbole

Leftists like Zoe Williams can’t re-write reality like that. Not yet, at least. But they can ignore reality and “electrify” themselves by humming with the Hive-Mind. As I’ve often said before, leftists are not interested in truth, but in power. They don’t want to help the oppressed, but to feed their own narcissism. And here’s another female leftist heaping up a humming helping of narcissism for herself on the Guardian letters-page. First she expresses her horror, then she activates her hyperbole:

Rosie Harvey-Coggins was horrified by one of the Guardian’s dining across the divide conversations

I usually enjoy the debate between the two different viewpoints in your “Dining across the divide” feature, but I was horrified last week (19 May) to see that you had effectively sent a black woman to explain colonial history to a white man.

This should not be done through the unpaid labour of black women. Asking them to do this is to ask them to relive every moment of fear, pain and outrage they have experienced throughout history. Black women face discrimination and systemic racism throughout their daily lives.

I think it would have been a better idea just to send him home with a copy of the book Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race by Reni Eddo-Lodge, and let him do the work.

Rosie Harvey-Coggins, Lichfield, Staffordshire (A black woman should not have to explain colonial history to a white man, The Guardian, 27th May 2022)

Dinna widda ’rilla: a Vibrant Black Female suffers all the pain of history from a stale pale male

If you read the episode that so horrified Rosie, you’ll discover that the “divide” was between two leftists: a stale pale male (SPM) called Kieran and a vibrant Black female (VBF) called Marcia. Very bravely, the SPM dared to wonder whether the VBF had an entirely secure grasp of reality when it came to mass immigration. She wanted Blacks like herself to keep flooding into Britain; he wondered whether this would be as wonderful in practice as it was in principle: “The problem is, you can’t just magic up the infrastructure necessary to support 250,000 people a year. It felt a bit like Marcia thought it would just happen.”

In response, the VBF said “the NHS [National Health Service] would never have got off the ground without immigration, and it would collapse tomorrow if all foreign-born workers left.” She’s perfectly right: it would indeed collapse. But only in the sense that an old house would collapse if you removed all the decaying wood and crumbling brick. As Andrew Joyce and others have pointed out at the Occidental Observer, non-White staff in the NHS are much more likely to be incompetent and to commit malpractice and crime. If the NHS were entirely staffed by British Whites, it would be a far better organization. The SPM in the “Dining across the divide” feature didn’t dare to point that out, but his mild dissent still “horrified” Rosie Harvey-Coggins of Lichfield in Staffordshire.

Rosie Harvey-Coggins, Heroine of the Hive-Mind, in her comfortable, bourgeois
and very White world

As you might expect from a name like that, Rosie Harvey-Coggins isn’t Black herself. In fact, her details are easy to find online. She’s a blonde White activist in the Labour party. But I’ve concealed her face in the images above because, unlike leftists, I don’t believe that people who express opinions contrary to mine should be harmed or harassed. The Guardian writer Marina Hyde once gloated on the radio about the savage murder of the South African far-right leader Eugene Terre’Blanche. I’m sure that Marina Hyde, Zoe Williams and Rosie Harvey-Coggins would be happy if I too were chopped up with machetes for my racist beliefs.

Insanity + dishonesty = leftism

But I wish them no harm in return for their leftist beliefs. In fact, I’m delighted to hear the opinions of leftists like Zoe and Rosie. After all, I find those opinions highly entertaining in their vapidity and conformism. I also find them psychologically fascinating. Does Rosie, for example, genuinely believe that mild dissent by stale pale males causes vibrant Black females “to relive every moment of fear, pain and outrage they have experienced throughout history”?

If Rosie does believe that, she’s insane. If she doesn’t believe that, she’s dishonest. But insanity and dishonesty aren’t mutually exclusive, of course. Leftism has happily combined the two for centuries. In Rosie’s case, however, I’m happy to accept that the dishonesty outweighs the insanity. She doesn’t genuinely believe her own hyperbole: she’s just virtue-signalling, expressing an opinion that feeds her narcissism and hums with the Hive-Mind.

Whiteness is Theft

If she were insane, on the other hand, she would translate rhetoric into action and give up the comfortable, bourgeois and very White existence she shares with Zoe Williams and countless other leftists. After all, according to Critical Race Theory, all White wealth and achievement are based on theft from Peoples of Color. So Rosie Harvey-Coggins shouldn’t be feeding that little white dog of hers with stolen White money: she should be funding the education of a little Black genius in Somalia or Zimbabwe or Haiti. She shouldn’t be taking expensive holidays in very pale places like Iceland: she should be living on the brink of destitution, donating her stolen White money to pro-Black causes like BLM and to VBFs like Reni Eddo-Lodge, the acutely insightful author of Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race (2017).

And why is Reni Eddo-Lodge “no longer talking to white people about race”? It’s simple. She doesn’t talk to them because she has the Truth about Blackness, knows exactly how White racism explains all Black failure, and can no longer tolerate any dissent by Whites. And she’s quite right, according to deluded White leftists like Rosie Harvey-Coggins. That’s why Rosie was “horrified” to see a stale pale male dissenting from the wisdom of a vibrant Black female.

Reality doesn’t interest the Hive-Mind

But was Rosie “horrified” by the rape-gangs of Rotherham? I’m sure she wasn’t. Rosie is a prime example of the bourgeois takeover of the Labour party and its betrayal of the White working-class. People like her have staffed the Labour councils in Rotherham and Rochdale and Manchester and Birmingham and many other British towns and cities, where dark-skinned rape-gangs have flourished for so long. White leftists feed their narcissism by rhetoric about rape, not by accepting the reality that rape is committed much more and in much worse ways by non-Whites. Reality doesn’t interest the Hive-Mind and Rosie Harvey-Coggins, like Zoe Williams, is a heroine of the Hive-Mind.

White woman to the rescue! How leftists like Rosie Harvey-Coggins see the world — the reality of racially mixed schools is entirely different

And yes, I said above that I wish no harm to such heroines of the Hive-Mind. But I need to qualify that. I would like Rosie and Zoe to live for a time in a leftist paradise where Blacks are in charge and Whites are a powerless minority, stripped at last of their undeserved wealth and privilege, unable to visit “fear, pain and outrage” on Blacks and to maintain the “systemic racism” with which they crippled Black lives and suppressed Black genius for so long. How would White women like Rosie and Zoe fare in that Black-ruled leftopia? After all, it’s the world they’re both working hard to create. But I suspect that if they experienced it for real, they would soon be begging for a return to “systemic racism” and “white supremacy.”

In Search of The Western Bushido

 

Bushido: The Soul of Japan
Inazo Nitobe, 1899.

 Warrior Race: A History of the British at War
Lawrence James
Little, Brown & Co., 2001.

The recent release of The Northman, along with my reading of two fascinating books, Bushido: The Soul of Japan and Warrior Race: A History of the British At War, has prompted me to share some thoughts on the nature and trajectory of Western warrior culture and its place in the West today. The Japanese concept and path of Bushido (“the way of the warrior”) is a useful tool for examining Western warrior culture because it is perhaps the only such system outside the West that offers some striking similarities. And yet there are also enough differences between Bushido and the history of the Western warrior to bring into sharp relief those qualities that make the European experience unique. In the following essay I want to offer something between a book review and a contemporary social commentary. It should be obvious that at the heart of the problem of the West is a failure to participate in the basics of life: to reproduce, and to compete with other groups. Competition in modernity has been reduced to a mostly economic exercise, accompanied by sports only insofar as those sports serve the goal of hypnotic mass entertainment and provide an impotent outlet for the universal instinct towards tribalism and conflict. The classic motifs of the way of the warrior  (disdain for death, quest for individual glory, and the building of a morality around concepts of honor rather than simple “fairness” or “equality”) have today either been sublimated to the point of becoming almost invisible, or have vanished entirely. Whence the Western bushido?

Honor and Death 

Perhaps the best content found in Lawrence James’s Warrior Race concerns the culture of the ancient Celtic Britons, and that of the Roman and Germanic invaders they came into conflict with. Common among all three, though more pronounced among the Celts and Germans, was the individual quest for honor and prestige. James writes that “personal honour, pride in his unit and reverence for his commanders and the state they served motivated the Roman soldier.”[1] Among the Celts meanwhile, were “professional warriors attached to tribal rulers. Their fighting methods were Homeric, with each man deliberately seeking to prove his audacity and prowess in the manner of a champion.”[2]

Warrior bands were united by shared pride in courage, and by loyalty to a noble lord. James comments that

If [a warrior band] leader was slain, his followers would fight on to the death. For the Romans, such behavior was another example of barbarian madness, but within the Germanic and Celtic traditions it was a mark of the highest distinction. And it long remained so. A fifth-century Roman was puzzled by the fact that among the Alani ‘a man is judged happy who sacrificed his life in battle.’ Six hundred years later, the gravestone of a Scandinavian warrior proclaimed: ‘He did not return at Uppsala, but fought while he could hold weapons.’[3]

The uniqueness of the Western warrior’s contempt for death is thrown into even sharper relief when considered alongside Japanese accounts. In Nitobe’s Bushido, it is remarked that the samurai warriors of feudal Japan possessed a “stoic composure in sight of danger or calamity, that disdain of life and friendliness with death.” This disdain of life, however, did not manifest in the ‘Homeric’ quality in battle alluded to by James. Nitobe adds that the Japanese warrior was not seen to “run all kinds of hazards, to jeopardize one’s self, to rush into the jaws of death.” The modern manifestation of the kamikaze is probably the closest Japanese behavior to the European example, but even here it is too goal-orientated, and rooted too heavily in shame-avoidance (suicide attacks being more effective in attacking warships than conventional attacks), to compare with the assertive seeking of death and honor found among the Europeans.

There is a calculated aspect to the Japanese warrior that is much less evident among the classic European ‘berserker’ type. James points out that “Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Pictish, and Irish warriors held similar values, followed similar codes of conduct, admired the same qualities, and shared a common pride in their calling.” Personal honor and reputation were primary, since “it gave the warrior status in his lifetime and renown after death, for his exploits would be relived by the versifiers and minstrels who entertained fighting men as they ate and drank in their lord’s hall.” Disdain for death was assisted among all the Northwest European tribes by the common practice of entering an animalistic and predatory state. The Irish called this process riastarthe, which may be rendered as ‘battle fury,’ and in the annals concerning the Irish hero Cuchulain some literary license was employed in explaining how its onset was accompanied by a terrifying physical transformation:

You would have thought that every hair was driven into his head. You would have thought that a spark of fire was on every hair. He closed one eye until it was no wider than the eye of a needle; he opened the other until it was as big as a wooden bowl. He bared his teeth from jaw to ear, and he opened his mouth until the gullet was visible.

Germanic fighting men, who raised themselves to a similar battle fury, became ‘berserk’ (bear-like) or ‘as mad as dogs or wolves; they bit their shields and were as strong as bears.” James suggests that

vulpine characteristics were particularly cherished, for wolves hunted in packs and their savagery was proverbial. Warriors clad in wolves’ skins absorbed that beast’s ferocity. They are described in the ninth-century Norse poem Raven Song: ‘Wolfcoats they are called, those who bear blood-stained swords to battle; they redden spears when they come to the slaughter, acting together.’

One of the remarkable features of the history of British warfare is the long persistence of such traits in the population. James argues that the knights of the middle ages were, after all, “direct descendants of Germanic and Celtic super-warriors.” An excellent case in point is the English lord Sir Giles D’Argentine, who distinguished himself against Scottish forces at the Battle of Bannockburn (1314):

At Bannockburn, when the tide turned against the English, Sir Giles scorned to join the general retreat. Instead, he spurred his horse straight into the ranks of the Scottish spearmen shouting his war cry ‘Argente!’ and was killed. Those of his enemies qualified to judge on arcane chivalric matters rated him ‘the third best knight of that day.’

Even into the nineteenth century, it was believed that the aristocracy could not rely on lineage alone to prove their elite status, but rather should demonstrate it by deeds, especially those involving military courage. In 1855, during the Crimean War, Viscount Palmerston addressed Parliament after news emerged of a heroic charge:

Talk to me of the aristocracy of England! Why, look at that glorious charge of cavalry at Balaklava — look to that charge, where the noblest and wealthiest of the land rode foremost, followed by heroic men from the lowest classes of the community, each rivalling the other in bravery.

A French officer observing another British attack on Russian lines was “astonished by the cold, drill-book manner in which the British moved forward.”[4]

Perhaps the most remarkable example of the persistence of the link between death and honor, found in Warrior Race, concerns an 1803 dispute between Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Montgomery, Household Cavalry, and Captain James Macnamara, Royal Navy. Both were walking their dogs in London’s Hyde Park when the dogs began fighting. Montgomery’s dog was badly wounded, and Montgomery demanded that Macnamara call off his dog or “I’ll knock it down.” Macnamara retorted that such language and conduct was not befitting a gentleman. This was a serious charge, and resulted in the declaration of a duel. The following morning the men met at a secluded part of Chalk Farm were they fired upon one another with pistols. Montgomery was fatally wounded. Three weeks later Macnamara appeared in court charged with manslaughter but defended his actions on the grounds that his role as leader in the Navy demanded that he maintain integrity of dignity and character, and defend his personal honor. He told the court, “It is impossible to define in terms, the proper feelings of a Gentleman; but their existence has supported this happy country for many ages, and she might perish if they were lost.” Macnamara was acquitted and eleven years later he was promoted to rear-admiral. James comments:

By deliberately facing death in a nonchalant manner, the duellist proved his capacity to suppress that most deeply implanted of all human impulses: the urge for self-preservation. If he surrendered to his animal reflexes or his reason, he would simply run away and reveal himself a coward. Cravenness was inexcusable in a gentleman and automatically disbarred him from the company of his equals.

The Fluid Hierarchy

Western social structures and class barriers were more fluid than those among other peoples, and is another difference between the Western warrior culture and the Japanese bushido who followed a rigid hereditary samurai class. Western warrior culture very often rewarded individual heroism with social promotion and the granting of lands, and the long tradition of piracy and battle-looting, which stretched back to the times of the Saxons and Vikings, persisted well into the nineteenth century. James describes how

Some years ago, a member of a Scottish landowning family told me how her ancestor, one of several sons of a crofter, had been taken by his father to enlist in a Highland regiment at Inverness. There was no alternative, for the family land could only support his eldest brother. The young man in question was literate and was promoted quickly, for the could attend to the orderly book, and the high wastage of officers in the Crimea secured him a commission. He served in the army that relieved Lucknow in 1857 and ruthless looting gained him sufficient cash to return home and purchase an estate.

James refers to the long history of such social fluidity, pointing out that

Early modern British society was hierarchical but fluid. A man acquired the public status of gentleman when he secured the symbol of knighthood, a coat of arms. In Elizabethan England and afterwards, they were freely available to anyone who would pay the herald’s fees and convince them that they lived either by their intelligence, if they were lawyers, or had acquired land, if they were merchants or, for that matter, a playwright property-owner like Shakespeare.

Religion 

For the samurai, bushido was informed by both Zen Buddhism and Shinto. Nitobe comments that the former inculcated a “calm trust in Fate, a quiet submission to the inevitable,” while Shinto encouraged loyalty to the sovereign and for ancestral memory. Pre-Christian religious influences on Western warrior culture are evident in the transformative, animalistic battle rituals of the ancient Celts and Germanics. It is worth pointing out that Christianity did very little to dull the edge of Western warrior culture, and in fact complimented it very well. As indicated in the early ninth century Saxon poem Heliand, Jesus Christ was embraced as an ideal warrior king who had arrived on Earth as the Ruler’s son, gathered about him a loyal band of men, and, as the “Might-Wielding Christ” had embraced a heroic end in battle against Satan and Death and will one day return upon a white horse to “judge and make war.” Lawrence James stresses that

Superficially at least, the Christian faith condemned all violence, but there were significant exceptions which together added up to the canonical concept of the just war. St Augustine of Hippo argued that force could be used in defence of the weak, to chastise rebels and oath breakers and, of course, against heretics and pagans. … There was little here that would have disturbed the conscience of an early medieval king who, ostensibly, only went to war to protect his otherwise defenceless subjects from aggression or to suppress rebellions. Furthermore, the church respected the calling of the warrior, the more so if he used his arms in pursuit of aims of which it approved.

The Present Day 

What remnants of Western warrior culture exist today? Not many. Ted Kaczynski’s concept of “surrogate activities” is appropriate for a wide range of phenomena in the modern West, and involves an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Kevin MacDonald has written, referring also to Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, that extreme sports are “a context of implicit Whiteness.” MacDonald writes

In this analysis, White men jumping off buildings and sky surfing are reenacting a fundamental script of Western culture—the same script that underlies Western energy, inventiveness, exploration and creativity. While I argue that this berserker military ethos of daring and adventure is not the whole story of Western individualism (there are also the morally constructed egalitarian ingroups that feed into today’s stifling political correctness; see here, p. 23ff),  I think Duchesne has a key insight that explains the psychology of a great many White men and is likely a critically important aspect of the evolutionary psychology of the West.

Such activities are impressive, and are certainly a way to “make ones name” in modernity. But they are also fundamentally without meaning or lasting legacy. For this reason, MacDonald expressed the hope that “such men develop an explicit sense of their White identity and interests and that they redirect their sense of physical daring and adventure to lead their people in the struggles that lie ahead.”

Another layer to “surrogate activities” is that key instincts are “outsourced” into entertainment forms and petty clannishness. This is especially obvious in the sporting world, where the instinct towards tribalism and conflict is directed into spectacles that are ultimately without meaning. Watch a European soccer game and you will very like hear rhythmic mass chants and clapping that are reminiscent of what once could have boomed over an ancient battlefield. In Europe, until recent times, soccer matches would be accompanied, both before and after the game, by mindless and meaningless running street battles between one faction of fans and another. One of the fastest rising sports in the last 15 years is mixed martial arts (MMA), in which men fight in a cage under a relatively loose set of rules (in the original Ultimate Fighting Championship there were hardly any rules at all). One positive effect of this has been a boom in martial arts training among White males, and Whites remain dominant as trainers and instructors.

Coupled with superhero movies and action films of all kinds, however, violence is now primarily something that entertains, rather than something that informs ones view of life and death. Lawrence James closes his history by discussing modern British office workers fighting with paint guns in forests as corporate “team-building exercises,” and the trend for those seeking some kind of personal fulfilment to undergo training programs devised by the Special Air Service. The warrior-aristocratic ethos of violence and conflict that lay at the heart of chivalry and blended with Christian ideals of social responsibility and Renaissance notions of virtue has largely disappeared from the culture of the West. It has been replaced with commercialism, crudity, vulgarity, and overwhelming cowardice.

The social structure of the West remains fluid, but the warrior and gentleman is no longer present in the hierarchy. He has been ousted by the oligarch, the technocrat, the merchant, and the career politician. The military elite is now nothing more than a tool of these forces, rather than a directing force in its own right. Long gone are the days when European heads of state led their troops into battle, earning their right to lead through courage and daring. Although aristocratic dominance of the armed forces in Britain persisted until well into the 19th century, the total wars of the twentieth century “democratized” and watered down the nature of warfare, reducing war to a calculation of numbers and technology in a manner that continues to this day. Where is the warrior in the age of the drone and the intercontinental ballistic missile?

Religion has also collapsed as a support of the European warrior ethos. Long-gone in the West is any hint of the “Might-Wielding Christ.” Today Christianity has been largely reduced to a foot-kissing immigration-assistance network. Look at any mainstream church and you’ll hear plenty about being meek and humble, and nothing about treading down one’s enemies like a winepress (Rev. 19:15). The result is that Christianity will undergo a shift in which less liberal, and more masculine, males gravitate towards very small enclaves of ultra-traditional Catholicism or Orthodoxy where asceticism and older visions of Christ prevail, while mainstream churches become more and more female-dominated. 

Writing at the end of the nineteenth century, Inazo Nitobe lamented the gradual decline of bushido in Japan, but remained hopeful that remnants of it would somehow persist:

Bushido as an independent code of ethics may vanish, but its power will not perish from the earth; its schools of martial prowess or civic honor may be demolished, but its light and its glory will long survive the ruins.

I wonder, if Nitobe observed Japan today, whether he would agree that bushido has survived the ruins. For my part, I find myself surveying the ruins of Western culture, and finding only debris.


[1] James, Warrior Race, 8.

[2] James, Warrior Race, 11.

[3] Ibid, 31.

[4] James, Warrior Race, 322.

Dreams of a Racial Utopia

Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of Anglo-America
Duncan Bell
Princeton University Press, 2020.

Duncan Bell’s Dreamworlds chronicles the largely forgotten efforts to unite the British and American empires during the late Victorian and Edwardian eras. What I found most interesting, however, was not the core narrative, but the broader historical continuities and changes his story reveals. During the early Victorian period Britain was at the top of its game. Having earlier helped dispatched Napoleon, it saw no threat on the continent, its population was growing, its empire was expanding, being the first nation to industrialize it was “the workshop of the world,” and Britannia ruled the waves. Half a century later its population growth had slowed considerably, while the population of a rapidly industrializing Germany was expanding along with its military prowess. To the west the US was now a continental power with the largest economy in the world and a growing navy. Many in British leadership realized that the “Splendid Isolation” policy that had worked earlier needed to be revised. Some British elites even envisioned reuniting with the former colony across the Atlantic to achieve Anglo-American world domination, ushering in a millennium of global peace and progress. Supporters of this idea noted the shared language and other characteristics between the two nations especial that of race. Almost all the advocates for a British-American union mention that both were Anglo-Saxon nations. Although by this time American had absorbed millions of Irish, German, Scandinavian, and other immigrants, US culture and US elites were still overwhelmingly of British origins.

So in an era when White racial consciousness remained a positive force it was natural to see this racial affinity as a critical asset. Peoples’ articulation regarding race was a bit less precise in this period. Thus we have the “English race,” or even the “English speaking race.” The term Anglo-Saxon was sometimes applied to any English-speaking White person. The initiative for this Anglo-American union came mostly from Britain. American historical memories of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and border disputes such as “Fifty-four Forty or Fight” provided context for the relationship during much of the nineteenth century. Only after 1898 did some Americans see any need or advantage in a British alliance. Bell highlights four of the most prominent proponents of the US -British union: Industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, journalist and editor W.T. Stead, imperial businessman and politician Cecil Rhodes, and novelist and essayist H.G. Wells. Three of the four were British, Carnegie being a Scottish-born American, more evidence that the wooing was predominately British.

I believe this project was largely a product of British elite’s anxiety over the rise of Wilhelmine Germany, though Bell does not explicitly state this. The author is a professor of international relations at Cambridge with a special interest in the history of the British Empire. His research on the issue of British-American union was prodigious. Among many interesting facts we learn that: “Arthur Conan Doyle dedicated his 1891 novel The White Company to ‘the hope of the future, the reunion of the English speaking races’” (203). Bell did stumble at least once, identifying the famous American historian Frederick Jackson Turner as “Frederick Turner Johnson” (60). The book’s main shortcoming, however, is its narrow focus which only hints at the wider issues that persist in the face of the historical change manifested in his monograph. These continuities include: race, globalism, and the role of Germany in world affairs. A more relevant study would relate these topics to our current state of affairs. The most useful historiography looks at the past to better understand the present, and perhaps even predict the future. Obviously the centrality of race is a major theme of the book, “race” is in the title. So for continuity we can say that the level of racial consciousness in the early twenty-first century is as high as it was in the late nineteenth century.

But the character of this consciousness has changed tremendously, and that change has occurred largely on the part of Whites. The positive White identity prevalent in an earlier time produced confidence, optimism, self- assurance, and pride in the British who created a world-wide empire and the Americans who conquered and settled a continent. Today the decedents of these men express shame, self- abasement, contrition, and penitence for these deeds. Race is central to both individual and collective identity so it is natural that White racialism would be pervasive in a White society. In the period dealt with here, White normativity was embedded into every aspect of culture. Today we have the reverse side of the same racial coin. Ethnic diversity and cultural inclusion are now the dominant values and have become intertwined in every facets of society.

The White racialism described by Bell transcended political and economic ideologies, as well as national borders. There were liberal racialists and conservative racialists; there were socialist racialists and capitalist racialists. And although the era is remembered for its national rivalries, Bell describes “how unionists sought to build a globe-spanning racial community” (6). Cecil Rhodes, for one, believed in “the ontological priority of race to political institutions” (139). After his death in 1902 his colleague W.T. Stead wrote that Rhodes was the “first distinguished British statesman whose Imperialism was that of Race and not of Empire” (142). Rhodes put his money where his mouth was by establishing the Rhodes scholarship at Oxford for young men from the Commonwealth, America, and Germany. Carnegie also praised Rhodes “for rejecting a myopic form of imperialism in favor of an expa—nsive ‘race imperialism’” (149). Today Rhodes is a controversial figure across the political spectrum. Bell’s understanding of his beliefs may run counter to some White racialists who are critical of Rhodes’ affiliation with the Rothschild’s Bank and his role in the Second Boer War.

Those promoting an Anglo worldwide federation considered including reciprocal or transnational citizenship. These ideas were “often fused with a commitment to ‘race patriotism,’ a reengineered account of loyalty and affective signification that identified race as a privileged site of political devotion, even love” (251). There was a belief on the part of many that “individuals owed allegiance to a nested set of communities, including their country and their race” (252). Carnegie thought “that treaties and defense pacts were temporary, whereas the ‘patriotism of race lies deeper and is not disturbed by waves upon the surface’” (288). What Bell is describing here—the idea of an international racial union to manage world affairs—is the genesis of today’s globalism. Its racial exclusivity has mutated, of course, into a militant multiracial, multicultural inclusivity.

Christian universalism played a role in this transformation. For example, in an 1885 book Our Country influential Congregational minister Josiah Strong wrote that Anglo-Saxons were God’s anointed people, destined to bring civilization to the less fortunate of the world. In The New Era (1893) Rev. Strong penned, “that the day is not far distant when Great Britain and the United States will join hands in defense of justice and liberty the world over” (90). What Rudyard Kipling called “The White Man’s Burden” evolved after World War II into the US (with Britain as junior partner) playing global cop and social worker, dispensing cruise missiles or humanitarian aid depending upon the circumstances.

It’s not hard to see how liberal imperialism of the late nineteenth century morphed into, the neoliberal globalism of the late twentieth century. While Christian universalism was an element in this internationalism, Jewish particularism saw an increasing role in the latter period. The words “Jew” and “Jewish,” however, do not appear in the 400 pages of Dreamworlds.

Of Bell’s four main characters: Carnegie, Stead, Rhodes, and Wells, Andrew Carnegie comes across as the most thoughtful and insightful. In his younger days he engage in some sharp business practices, but he spent the last twenty years of his life engaged in an unprecedented level of philanthropy. Although the British-American union he envisioned was never realized he was right about most issues. A Darwinist and a racialist, he was concerned about “intra racial animosity” (51). He recognized the unity between the Anglo-Saxon and the German. “The Briton of today,” wrote Carnegie in 1893, “is himself composed in large measure of the Germanic element, and the German, Briton, and American are all of the Teutonic race” (56). Carnegie was an anti-imperialist. The only expansion he supported was settler colonialism which would lead to self-government. Anticipating the Spanish-American War he declared: “If American can learn one lesson from England, it is the folly of conquest, where conquest involves the government of an alien race” (84). His pre-World War I proposed League of Peace “was inflected by his belief in the ontological primacy of race . . . [and] he argued that it was essential to ally (not unify) with Germany, given their shared Teutonic origins” (337).

It is widely believed that the optimism that produced visions of a racial utopia died in the mud and blood of World War I, so the failure of the Angles and Teutons to pursue common interests rather than narrow national interests proved disastrous. As noted above, many Anglo unionists — Carnegie, Stead, Rhodes — sought to include Germany in their project to one degree or another. At this time there was a wide-spread belief that a common thread ran from the ancient German folk assemblies described by Tacitus in Germania (98 AD), through England to the political institutions of the New World. Sometimes call the Teutonic Germ theory, this idea was articulated by scholars such as Herbert Baxter Adams, a founding member of the American Historical Association. A proponent of this thesis cited by Bell was James Bryce, author of The American Commonwealth (1888). Bryce saw “the history of Teutonic self-government stretching back through England to the Germanic tribes.” Political practices are “expressive products of racial deep time, New England town meetings could trace their origins back centuries” before Plymouth Rock (59). Incidentally, Bryce was a liberal racialist who criticized the rise of the gilded age plutocracy and advocated for civil service reform.

We can discern, perhaps, during this period the possibility of an ORION (our race is our nation) ideology developing. Instead, in 1914 Germans became baby-killing Huns and Anglo-Saxons and continental Saxons commenced slaughtering each other. After 1945 Germany was gelded and lobotomized. Its natural role in economic and political leadership subsumed by NATO and the European Union. Germany is needed to both check and partner with the Orthodox/Cyrillic civilization to the east.

In the last chapter Bell shifts gears and describes what he calls “Afro-modernism contra White Supremacy” (373).Here again we see a continuity in the arguments Black writers have used to challenge White society. The first such author examined is Martin Delany. In his The Principia of Ethnology (1879) Delany claims that Black Egypt gave rise to Western civilization. Bell does not dispute this falsity, but he does note that Delany was also a novelist and “Afro-modern writers frequently utilized speculative fiction as a medium of political critique, vindication, and desire” (377). To provide an example Bell pivots to a contemporary Black novelist Colson Whitehead. A product of the Black bourgeoisie, an elite prep school, and the Ivy League, Whitehead is the author of The Underground Railroad (2016), a convoluted alternative history lavishly praised by the critics. It is not much of a stretch to believe that the novelist speaks through one of his nineteenth-century characters to express the rage the twenty-first-century Black literati. “This nation [America] shouldn’t exist if there is any justice in the world, for its foundations are murder, theft and cruelty” (379). There in a nutshell explains why statues and monuments must be toppled, history revised, and social and cultural institutions remade.

Another Black author Bell considers is W.E.B. DuBois. In The Color Line Belts the World (1906) DuBois repeats the Black Egyptian theory. He goes on to express joy over Russia’s defeat by Japan in 1905, probably not realizing that the Japanese were as race conscious as Southern Whites and generally held Blacks in low esteem. In The Souls of White Folks (1910) “DuBois argued that the best social science of the day had wholly discredited the idea of race as a distinctive entity” (383). So the idea that races really do not exist also has a long history, though at the time these Black contras wrote, few Whites took their ideas seriously. A third turn-of-the-century Black writer examined by Bell is T.E.S. Scholes. Scholes explained the current low status of Africans as part of a historical cycle, claiming that Blacks like “all peoples rose and fell, undergoing periods of progressive development before they eventually declined” (388). Thus Black Egyptian civilization led the way for European ascendency.

One interesting observation made by both DuBois and Scholes is that White elites tend to be less racially conscious and more cosmopolitan than the White middle and working classes who seek support from a racial community. Jamaican-born Scholes believed that while the imperial elite of the British Empire was somewhat open to integrating natives, the settler populations were not. He goes on to complain that American racialism was negatively influencing British colonial administrators.

Relevant points: More evidence that the diversity and inclusion ideology has been a top-down movement from the start; and nineteenth century British liberal imperialism had a seminal role in producing today’s globalism. I think we can read Dreamworlds as further indication that there will be no post-racial America, much less a post-racial world. Race is an essential aspect in both interpersonal and group dynamics. Most Whites cannot help but to think and act White. It is literally in their DNA, so authors such as Robin DiAngelo, who claim that to be White is to be racist, may have a point. Only by transcending their essence can Whites be “anti-racist.” To achieve such a change on a large scale would require a totalitarian political and social order. Many of the individuals described in Bell’s book believed that Anglo-Saxons had a special genius, not only for self-government, but also for governing others; that they should be global administrators for mankind. This idea has led to the current interventionism and destructive globalism. There is an obvious need to reform present international organizations or create alternatives, ones that take into account the importance race. One such proposal is Euro-Siberia advocated by Guillaume Faye. Another, bit more esoteric plan, is Hyperborea, a union of northern nations based on Greek mythology. The ideal international arrangement would be a confederation that protects and enhances Western peoples and culture by addressing collective needs while preserving national independence. Perhaps the most important contribution made by a book such as Dreamworlds is as a reminder that Whites were once the masters of their own destiny. We have since lost our sovereignty, but while utopia was never a real possibility the hope for an instauration remains.

The Nature of Women and the ‘Woke’ Problem

Anyone who is perceptive of current social and political trends in America knows that women — especially White liberal women — play an inordinate role. They are almost always at the forefront of any protest lecturing others about ‘systemic racism,’ ‘white privilege,’ ‘toxic masculinity,’ and the need for ‘equity’ in every sphere of life.

These same women are given every conceivable platform to spew their revolutionary rhetoric. They demand to be heard, and they haven’t the slightest hesitancy to confront and shout down their opponents. The prevailing attitude among them best fits the popular quote attributed to the late Harvard professor, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who wrote in 1976 that “well-behaved women seldom make history.” This was apparently taken out of its context and given the new meaning that if women are to make an impact on society for good, they must rebel against the norm and be disruptive. The notion of a woman who is gracious and well-mannered as she protests is anathema to the thinking of most contemporary liberal female activists.

All of this, of course, is not a recent phenomenon. It has its roots in the women’s suffrage movement beginning in the nineteenth century and increasing in influence ever since. The most notable modern feminists were Jews such as Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Gloria Steinem, and the late Supreme Court judge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, can be named among them. In fairness, there are plenty of gentile women who have also played a significant role in feminist history. Yet it would be hard to deny that Jewish feminists have played a more influential and disproportionate one. I suspect this is due in large part to Jews controlling news corporations, print media, Hollywood, and much of academia.

Feminist women have always created scenes for their cause. They have always engaged in public antics. They have always been vocal and confrontational. What we are witnessing today, then, is not necessarily new, but it is different in its degree and scope.

The contemporary feminist woman of today is not just passionate about what she believes, she is uber-passionate about it. She’s not just a believer, she’s a fanatic. She’s not just on a mission, she sees herself as a revolutionary bent on transforming the world. She cannot be reasoned with. She’s not just ready to argue, but ready also to brawl. She doesn’t just lecture, she screams her message  at others. She demands that you listen to her, and if you don’t, she’ll force you to listen. She invades public spaces demanding to be heard.

The modern ‘woke’ feminist is consumed with her own self-righteousness. She is obsessed with virtue signaling before others. She hasn’t the faintest doubt about the rightness of her cause. And anyone who opposes her or even tries to temper her opinions is no different than the most deplorable humans we could imagine. Restraint and moderation aren’t permitted among today’s feminists. Like the most rabid religious fundamentalist, there is no reasoning with them. It is an all or nothing proposition.

The new and hard-core feminists of today are not limited to a few cranks who are childless and have never been married. A good many of these women, instead, are married and have children. They are part of mainstream society. Other than the ‘pussy hats’ they might wear to some rallies, they wouldn’t necessarily stand out all that much from ‘normie’ women.

Nevertheless, leftist women have a number of differences, as revealed by a recent U.K. survey.

  • The most popular LGBT identity is bisexual, which is significantly more common among women than men.
  • When we look at homosexual behavior, we find that it has grown much less rapidly than LGBT identification. Men and women under 30 who reported a sexual partner in the last five years dropped from around 96% exclusively heterosexual in the 1990s to 92% exclusively heterosexual in 2021. Whereas in 2008 attitudes and behavior were similar, by 2021 LGBT identification was running at twice the rate of LGBT sexual behavior.
  • The author provides a high-point estimate of an 11-point increase in LGBT identity between 2008 and 2021 among Americans under 30. Of that, around 4 points can be explained by an increase in same-sex behavior. The majority of the increase in LGBT identity can be traced to how those who only engage in heterosexual behavior describe themselves.
  • Very liberal ideology is associated with identifying as LGBT among those with heterosexual behavior, especially women. It seems that an underlying psychological disposition is inclining people with heterosexual behavior to identify both as LGBT and very liberal. The most liberal respondents have moved from 10-15% non-heterosexual identification in 2016 to 33% in 2021. Other ideological groups are more stable.
  • Very liberal ideology and LGBT identification are associated with anxiety and depression in young people. Very liberal young Americans are twice as likely as others to experience these problems. 27% of young Americans with anxiety or depression were LGBT in 2021. This relationship appears to have strengthened since 2010.
  • Among young people, mental health problems, liberal ideology, and LGBT identity are strongly correlated. Using factor analysis in two different studies shows that assuming one common variable between all three traits explains 40-50% of the variation.
  • Because the rise in LGBT identity is so heavily concentrated on the political left, its influence on the balance of power between the two parties is likely to be limited.
  • College students majoring in the social sciences and humanities are about 10 points more LGBT than those in STEM. Meanwhile, 52% of students taking highly political majors such as race or gender studies identify as LGBT, compared to 25% among students overall.
  • Various data sources indicate that gender nonconformity – trans and non-binary identity – reached its peak in the last few years and has started to decline.
  • Overall, the data suggest that while there has been an increase in same-sex behavior in recent years, sociopolitical factors likely explain most of the rise in LGBT identity.

Yet this is where the potential of their destructive message and influence could be greater than feminists of previous generations. They may not necessarily look like the traditional feminist with their short, cropped hair, tattoos, piercings, blue hair, and the like (there are plenty of modern feminists, admittedly, who still appear as I have described). Instead, they physically appear to be no different than every other adult woman. This gives the feminist message of today a less threatening appearance and, thereby, more acceptable to the gullible women who might entertain such notions.

The question naturally arises why women are so seemingly susceptible to such radical social and political movements? Why do women so often comprise the shock troops and first ranks of any Leftist political protest?

I think there are reasons for this, none of which are accidental.

The first reason lies in a woman’s nature. Women are nurturers. They are disposed to care for, treat and help others. They are natural do-gooders. They have an innate pull to help and ease the suffering of the less fortunate. Their inclination is to make things better. They are helpers at heart. These are not necessarily bad qualities, but they must be kept in check lest it morph into the kind of militant ‘woke’ women who have taken hold in our society.

The collective insanity of our women is perhaps no more perfectly illustrated in the massive numbers of American women who are rabidly pro-abortion. If women do indeed possess nurturing qualities when it comes to babies and children, why are so many of them willing to terminate their pregnancies — even to the point of supporting partial-birth and after-birth abortions?

These same women must literally suppress their most natural instincts in order to support abortion. Spiraling to this level of evil doesn’t occur overnight. No, it occurs incrementally until one completely sears and deadens their moral conscience. What accounts for this other than a nationwide mass delusion of our women? What sort of wickedness has crept into their hearts and minds for them to celebrate laws that permit the deaths of millions of unborn and partially born babies?

The second reason lies in the emotional nature of women. They tend to think from the heart and not so much from the head. Women, generally, tend to be less critical and cautious in their thinking than men. They are often reactionary, and their heartstrings can be more easily pulled than their male counterparts.

Obviously, there are exceptions to what I’m saying. There are plenty of women who are careful thinkers and who are not as easily manipulated emotionally as other women. But in my estimation these kinds of women are the exception and not the norm. They are the outliers. I don’t even think it comes natural to them. They must fight against their more trusting and emotional natures in some way.

Bear in mind that I’m not saying that men are completely free of emotionalism and less critically minded in the way women generally are. There are plenty of men who can be just as irrational at times and emotionally driven. But overall males tend to be different in this realm than females. Men are not so easily emotionally manipulated as women, and in this sense the two sexes really are different from each other.

It should surprise no one, then, why religious charlatans and radical Marxist groups have so easily preyed on females. They too understand the nature of females, and they exploit it for all it’s worth. Most churches are filled with women, and they often lead the various committees and church ministries. Even cosmetic manufacturers target women in their advertisements in ways that comport with the nature and unique proclivities of females.

They know good-and-well that most women are gullible and can be easily manipulated. They would never admit it, of course, but they would not have had the same level of marketing success if these fundamental distinctions were not kept in mind.

Go to any Leftist protest, and you will witness crowds of angry women with posters and picket signs on behalf of their political cause. The sheer numerical dominance of female protesters, in fact, often serves as the impetus for some men to join the cause so they can have easy access to all the women. The point being that women are the ‘weaker sex’ and not just physically, but emotionally and in terms of critical awareness.

I would add that the presence of large numbers of women at Marxist and feminist political rallies serves also to disarm any political opponents who may be in attendance. Who would, after all, like to be surrounded by throngs of hostile and screeching women? Any male who sought to engage them would be drowned out with a barrage of epithets and the vilest profanity. Today’s loud-mouthed ‘pussy hats’ are not ashamed to say what they really think. Even if a melee broke out, what man would want to be filmed fighting a woman? Women, then, are used by Leftist activist groups to intimidate and demoralize any male opposition that might be present.

The third reason lies in what women are told about themselves by those who control the messaging. Women in America are told they can do anything a man can, and even better too. Women are portrayed in the media, television and Hollywood as practically super-heroes. These are lies, of course, but we’re not allowed to say so. Expect consequences if you do.

Turn on any television commercial and the woman is always portrayed as smarter and more quick-witted than any man. Males are portrayed as clueless and dull-minded. Whether it’s working as a police officer or in combat infantry, females can do it all. There are no intellectual or physical barriers, and anyone who suggests there might be is a backward patriarchal fool.

Anyone who appeals to the physical limitations of women compared to men in the realm of sports, is immediately denounced. No amount of reality and facts will persuade the feminist mindset.

For example, during a CBS This Morning interview, the once great professional tennis player (now retired), John McEnroe, tried to talk some sense into host Gail King when he stated in a 2017 NPR interview that if Serena Williams “played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.” She wouldn’t accept it even though McEnroe admitted that Serena was “the greatest female tennis player that ever lived.” Gail wanted so badly for McEnroe to say that Serena was the greatest tennis player among both men and women. To his credit, he wouldn’t say it because it wasn’t true.

At one point, McEnroe was asked by one of Gail’s co-hosts, “Would you like to apologize?” Thankfully, he refused to cave to such pressure. Yet it serves to illustrate that fundamental and biological differences between men and women, including differences in physical abilities, cannot be admitted even when the facts are readily available.

Also, why must people apologize for an opinion they have, especially if it is sincerely held and can be proven? The question reveals more about the mindset of the person asking for the apology than the opinion of McEnroe.

The reality of innate male and female differences and their physical abilities should be patently obvious to anyone, but is now denied so as not to arouse the displeasure of today’s feminists. We must pretend that men and women are the same. We must deny what our lying eyes see and what we instinctively know.

Any man who dares to publicly challenge the reality-denying worldview of ‘woke’ feminism will soon find himself de-platformed and likely unemployed. A voice free to express itself, personal dignity, and even employment cannot be given to society’s ‘heretics.’ The very things that feminists demand and force upon society they quickly deny to anyone who challenges their dogma. It only serves to prove just how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest they are at their core.

The fourth reason lies in the breakdown of the family and society. Feminism did not arise in a vacuum. There were an array of historical events and influences that contributed to its development. Like most misguided political movements, especially those that had strong Jewish and Marxist influences, it was just a matter of time before what seemed like a well-intentioned movement for ‘equality’ turned into a nation destroying agenda led largely by crazed women bent on imposing their Utopian values on the rest of us.

It has been said that when even the women of any society become as debased as the men of that same society, you can rest assured that its days are numbered. Surely America’s days are numbered if one considers how far too many of our women conduct themselves, especially when given a platform. Just look at how they dress. You can’t go to any store or public event without seeing an enormous ham-beast wallowing about attired in the tightest and most revealing clothes imaginable. Jiggles and cellulite for all to see. Tatted sleeves on every arm. Pierced like an African tribesmen, and a foul mouth to boot. She has no sense of shame. No self-awareness. God help the man who’d dare to suggest that she’s not the Greek goddess she imagines herself to be!

There is nothing gracious or even feminine about them. Nothing that could be deemed dignified or classy. They are not soft-spoken nor reasonable — the very qualities that might attract more men to their cause!

This is what our American women have morphed into. This is what ‘woke’ feminism does to the women of any society stupid enough to tolerate it. Is it any wonder why so many American men are turning to Asian and Eastern European women who possess the slimness, femininity, grace, and traditional values they want?

Our women, in truth, have abandoned the natural order of things. They are in complete rebellion, but they are too brainwashed and self-righteous to see it. At least two generations of American women have been duped into believing that causal sex, abortion, and climbing the corporate ladder will bring them happiness. A good many of them have discovered it doesn’t. They are now in their late 30s and 40s, and they want to get married and have children. But for most of them, it’s too late.

Some of them have only recently discovered what they were intended to be all along — namely, mothers and homemakers. Instead of saving themselves sexually for their husbands, partnering with those same husbands, and rearing responsible children possessing real values and character, they opted for a corporate career with no husband and no children. They spent their best years pursuing a worthless college degree (at least in most cases) and partying. Having hit the wall by the time they reached thirty, and having gone through multiple sexual partners, there remains few marriageable men and those who are single may not necessarily want a woman who has a host of bed notches to her name.

The fifth reason is because men have largely abdicated their role as leaders in the home, church, and society. Women have rebelled against the natural order of things, no doubt, but men have also allowed it to happen. They have remained content to do nothing about it. They have become passive. Some of these same men have aligned with feminists in order to have access to them and to gain their approval. Other men have done it because like so many feminists they too have a need to virtue-signal.

When our men refuse to take their leadership roles in society, there will arise plenty of women who will be glad to do it for them. And this is where the problems begin.

Far too many men do not have their lives together. They have no framework or worldview in which to interpret the society around them. They have not developed a practical philosophy of marriage and child-rearing. Most men do not even think in such terms. It’s completely foreign to them. Their fathers never taught nor modeled before them how a husband and father is to conduct himself. There is a complete absence on the part of these same fathers of imparting values and practical wisdom to their sons. They either haven’t considered it or don’t think it’s important to do so. Their own fathers may have never addressed such subjects. And so whatever knowledge is gained by our young men is almost always based on a liberal and materialistic worldview — which will always prove detrimental to the lives and future of Whites.

I know this will be difficult for many to accept, but the dominance of women in almost every realm of our society is not a good indicator of our national health. When women and transexuals are promoted to important and even strategic positions within our military, this is not a good sign. It certainly signals to our enemies that we are weak, that we are driven more by popular ‘woke’ rhetoric and artificial constructs than by the safety of our countrymen. Any nation, such as the U.S., that exalts and virtually deifies women sets itself on a course that will surely collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. This is not to say that honorable and virtuous women should not be honored by society, but only that national and social policies should not be determined by what women ‘feel’ nor by any false or inflated views of what they can do.

In other words, when women rule a nation’s most important institutions — especially if its foundation are ideologically ‘woke’ — it will inevitably self-destruct. Consider, for example, Germany’s former Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the problems she saddled her nation with because of her bleeding heart for Islamic migrants. In Sweden, 47% of its Riksdag (parliament) is comprised of women. Switzerland’s Federal Assembly has 41.5% females. It should surprise no one that these same countries also have extremely liberal social policies and permit large numbers of Islamic people to immigrate.

While there may be some historical exceptions to what I have written, the point remains: Women in national leadership roles generally tend to weaken a nation because of their sympathetic natures, their susceptibility to social contagion, and poor discernment.

The same thing could be said about the presence of women in the police profession. Although women do well in support roles (e.g., dispatchers), they do not have the natural physical traits and upper body strength that’s required to do the job. Most male cops will admit this, albeit privately. Is it any wonder why so many female officers are injured in the course of their duties? Most male felons will comply with a female officer only when she’s accompanied by stronger male officers.

When women are given endless platforms to spew the sappiest political drivel, including the most nation-destroying social ideas, and then celebrated for it, this too is not a good thing. It is a sign that we are done with as a nation since only a people bent on national suicide would permit it. And it’s not because there aren’t any intelligent and perceptive women because there surely are. But when a society tolerates only one viewpoint — a liberal feminist one — there is little hope that that same society will turn out wiser and stronger in the end.

The old 1968 Virginia Slims cigarette TV commercial used to say, “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby” — but for great numbers of American women, it’s been a self-imposed disaster for themselves and the nation at every step.

The Generational Divide in Eastern Europe: the Stability Generation (The Youth)

I readily admit that “Stability Generation” isn’t a moniker that will ever stick in the public consciousness. But, I chose the term to highlight the stark difference in society that the younger generations grew up in. Those who spent their conscious, formative years in the Putin period of relative stability are quite different from the generations that preceded them. Basically, people who were children in the 90s or 00s and who have entered young adulthood now, grew up in a Russia that was on the upswing. Once the Chechen problem was solved, stability returned to the country and the real economy began to recover in ways that improved the quality of life for the average Russian.

In Ukraine, in contrast, the stability period never really materialized. Yes, the economy generally recovered some from the shocks of the 90s, but the organized looting never ended and political turmoil only intensified as time went on. This had notable ripple effects on average Ukrainians, who became far more demoralized as the years went by and fled the country in droves. It is hard to imagine it, but Ukraine used to have a population of 50+ million souls. Some analysts put the number at 27 million now, but estimates vary. This is a shocking statistic to even consider.

What happened to all those people? Well, they either emigrated or died, I suppose. Not many new Ukrainians were born in the post-USSR period, either.

In Belarus, in contrast, the period of instability was less intense and stabilized quicker because of Lukashenko, who, for all his flaws and habit of playing footsie with the West from time to time, refused to let national assets and industries be dismembered and sold to foreigners for pennies. Having a strong leader during a time of crisis pays dividends, does it not?

Generally speaking, the youth who grew up in the stability period in Russia and Belarus are more or less normal people. They don’t have ideological “cockroaches in their head” as the expression goes i.e., they don’t have a set of bizarre political complexes at war with reality running around their heads. That means that they’re not really participants in the never-ending pro-USSR vs anti-USSR ideological debate that dominates Russian political discourse and for the most part largely eschew regular politics. Putin isn’t going anywhere and besides, the only serious opposition party in Russia has always been the Communists, and the youth weren’t going to go out into the streets waving red flags. They got enough of that at home from their grandparents. That being said, many of them are possessed with an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West like the generation that preceded them. But if the Bariga generation is militant in its aggressive pro-Western posturing, the younger people have less of a knee-jerk anti everything related to the USSR and Russia mentality.

Yes, things were going well for awhile with the youth, and I had high hopes for the future of Russia based on my interactions with this generation. They had few of the bad characteristics of either the Sovoks or Barigas and were generally optimistic about the world and their place in it.

But then it all began to change.

Eastern Europe has benefitted, unbeknownst to itself, from a “cultural lag” and from the unintended positive effects of the Iron Curtain, which cut off ties between East and West. Trends started in the West by Hollywood or the CIA or MI6 used to take decades to make their way over to the USSR. My parents only saw Star Wars in 1991, for example. But that cultural lag has started to wear off and what may have taken decades to permeate Slav society is now flooding in at an alarming, transformative rate.

Eastern Europe was blissfully insulated from the SJW craze for a time — they were still watching the old Terminator films and talking about cowboys and gangsters when I made my way over in 2014. America was seen as a cool and macho place overflowing with fun and guns and easy sex and not much else. When I started sounding the alarm about SJWism to my friends all the way back in 2015, I received only scoffs of unbelief that such a thing could even exist.

“No-no-no, you don’t understand. It’s like Marxism, really. Instead of Proles and Bougies though, it’s Blacks and Whites, Gays and Normals, and so on.”

Nowadays, SJWism has already made its inroads into youth culture. You see rainbow flags and pins on the backpacks of young girls sitting at trendy cafes. Metrosexuality is quite popular as a fashion trend among big-city young men and there has been a veritable explosion of interest in elective sexual identities among both boys and girls. Being pro-Ukraine has become trendy as well, with the Ukrainian flag coming to symbolize Human Rights Freedom Democracy™ and opposition to Russia’s oppressive and backwards conservative culture. Coffee shops routinely play Ukrainian rock music like Okean Elzy (not bad, actually) to signal their support for Kiev and their hatred for their own country.

These trends used to be confined to places like Kiev and Minsk and Moscow and St. Petersburg. However, because of smartphones and apps like Tinder and Instagram, this culture has become accessible in even far-flung places like Barnaul (Siberia), which I visited half-expecting to find Hyperboreans walking around in furs and animal pelts, but instead ended up spending my time talking about K-Pop stars with trendy Vans-wearing local students at the anti-cafe (a coffee-shop where you pay for time instead of drinks). University towns are where these alarming trends are most visible. There is an almost one-to-one correlation between English-language penetration and progressive views. Young Russians who know English well almost all display the warning signs of latent SJWism, which they no doubt acquired through their Netflix subscription or reading the various fashion/trend magazines in English.

This is made worse by English-language cultural content being translated into Russia by media outfits geared to the youth like Medusa and The Village. Both have been shut down, thankfully, within Russia since the special operation began.

Of course, the situation is nowhere near as bad as it is in America, for example, but the general trend isn’t good. Central Moscow and St. Petersburg are hotspots of rabid anti-Russian hatred and opposition politics. As soon as the special operation was announced, throngs of students went out to protest and get man-handled by the police. Because of the swift, illiberal response from the OMON, these protests were quickly quashed. But these are very bad optics on the part of the Russian government — young people getting beaten up by riot cops isn’t exactly a PR victory.

Naturally, instead of investing in a patriotic youth movement, the Kremlins in their infinite wisdom, decided to do literally nothing over the years to work with the youth and so ceded the future of the country to the malign influence of Western media. This means that spending an afternoon wandering around Moscow’s trendy youth hotspots is akin to spending time in Brooklyn, albeit with far less diversity, thankfully. Luckily for the Russian government, the youth doesn’t really vote with any consistency and hasn’t rallied behind an opposition candidate to date, although Alexey Navalny came close to capturing that youth energy with his antics.

Why was Navalny successful with the youth? Well, unlike the standard run-of-the-mill Russian politicians, he had Western-educated advisors with deep pockets and experience running color revolution ops advising him to utilize the internet and to tailor his message to appeal to the youth. In other words, unlike other political figures, he actually tried. The youth, eternally gullible and naive, rallied behind an actual bariga from the older Bariga generation who had gotten caught embezzling money on two separate occasions (the perfume and the forest scandals) and then had the gall to run on an anti-corruption platform. Ah, to be young…

But what problems do the youth face? What issues do they want addressed?

Well, the problems that the youth face in Eastern Europe are pretty much identical to the problems that the youth in the West face, even if we factor in the grotesque ethnic grievance agenda aimed at Western Whites by Jews and brown people. Anti-Russianness, however, is largely confined to the universities and isn’t actively promoted by the major media like in the West. On the economic front, the Russian youth can’t afford housing and unlike in America, credit is quite tight. A loan for a starter apartment usually comes with 12–16% interest. There are few jobs and even fewer jobs that pay well. Gone are the days of Soviet macroeconomic stability and gone are the days when one could steal enough for a personal nest egg. Programming is the only real field for a smart Russian without connections to make some money and set himself up for middle-class stability later on in his life. The youth go to universities where they get useless degrees and a good dose of Liberal propaganda much like their Western counterparts (albeit without the crushing debt) and then realize that a lifetime of service economy drudgery awaits them. Some of them decide to take to the streets, I suppose.

Also, many young people come from broken homes and are the product of single-mommery and divorce drama. Relationships between the sexes are strained, but not quite as bad as in the West. Toxic feminism has been growing at an exponential rate in Russia with negative effects for both women and men. It has become fashionable to go to a psychologist and start taking anti-depressants SSRIs — an alarming trend, and one that the parents remain largely ignorant of. Designer drugs are readily available and cheap and popular (“metadron,” in particular). Tattoo culture is also widespread and ubiquitous, especially among the women, as is Western gangster rap, although there’s plenty of “Russian” degenerate music from rappers like Oxxxymiron (Jewish) to choose from as well.

Again, if we were to compare this with the West, it’s simply a difference of cultural lag and scale.

If you want to know what trendy big-city Russians will look and act like in 5 years time, simply look at how they act in the West now and wait. There is no meaningful local counter-culture pushing back against these trends as of yet. Political pundits on TV will occasionally whine about the youth, but seem genuinely baffled that WWIIism and old Soviet movies are not enough to reverse the trend. Parents don’t know what to do or generally don’t care enough to intervene.

The trend is bleak, but that doesn’t mean that the youth is lost entirely — far from it. In the West, there are many young men who have begun rebelling against the culture of hedonism and self-destruction promulgated by the Jewish culture-creators. So too, in Russia, there are many young men who are disgusted by what they see occurring in their country. Only, we have yet to see an analogous youth cultural movement like the meme-right appearing anywhere in Eastern Europe.

However, I believe that the war will have a positive effect on youth culture in Russia.

Not only are many Liberal media projects being shut down, but many Russians are waking up to the fact that the people running the West hate them and want them dead. Young veterans from the war will start trickling back into civil society and will contribute to the overall level of “basedness” as well. Because this war is popular, unlike the war in Afghanistan, for example, the prestige of the military in society will only grow as a result. Hopefully this translates into increased political power as well. I’d like to see popular military figures running for office and demanding to be put in charge of key industries and civil institutions once the conflict dies down. Russia used to be run by military men, not by the merchant class and its time to RVTVRN to tradition as far as I’m concerned.

Other than that, what else can I say?

Things could be better, I suppose. But they could be worse, to be fair, as well. There aren’t really that many young people to make much of a dent in the cultural landscape of Russia, really. Also, current reproductive rates indicate that there will be even fewer young people in a generation’s time and I see little to indicate that this generation will start having large families any time soon. In 2021, there was were either 1.5 or 1.82 births per woman, depending on what statistics are to be believed.

Luckily, neither Russia or Ukraine or Belarus have begun a society-wide program of population replacement like the governments of the West have. In fact, the number of non-White migrants seems to have precipitously fallen in all these countries as a result of recent events, but the official statistics (for what they’re worth) have been delayed this year and we don’t know for sure yet.

In other words, the situation is grim, but it’s far from hopeless.

I want to conclude this series by pointing out that both Western and Eastern Whites are in a civilizational death spiral. There is, however, the faintest glimmer of hope for Eastern Europe because there are still organized forces in society that are capable of standing up to the power of the Global Oligarchy. Both Putin and Lukashenko seem hell-bent on surviving and not meeting the same fate as Hussein and Ghadaffi. The military by and large remains a bastion of Spartan conservatism and martial stoicism. A vast hinterland of rednecks and hicks still retains the capacity to turn up their noses in disgust at the behavior of the big-city people.

If Russia can prevent the youth from falling for the cultural brainwashing coming from the West, and if the country survives the NATO onslaught, the situation may very well still be salvaged.

Jewish Media Ownership and Management—An Update

As recently as last month, I was struck by the similarity of a headline on the popular Children’s Health Defense website to the headline of an article I had read elsewhere some years ago, dated 2012. The CHD article was titled “6 Companies Control 90% of What You Read, Watch and Hear. Here’s Why You Should Care,” by Rebecca Strong. The 2012 article was titled “Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media.” The apparent author of this earlier article was unclear. Today an internet search using this exact title will bring at least six exact hits, all of them either giving the name of the person who posted it but showing no author attribution, falsely claiming another author, or in one case even admitting “As Editor of this publication, I have never become aware of who wrote this article. My apologies.”

I’ve always thought the author was Professor Johan Galtung, who originally wrote his study of world media ownership in 2012. I thought I might confirm the authorship by reviewing the June 13, 2012 posting of an article focused on Galtung by The Occidental Observer editor Kevin MacDonald, titled “Johan Galtung on Jews.” The TOO article references a Haaretz article which claims Galtung made the accusations of Jewish world media ownership in a lecture he gave at the University of Oslo, which was then published in “the Norwegian press,” and further presented in Haaretz in the form of an interview with Galtung. Further disconnecting Galtung from the actual essay asserting Jewish ownership of 96% of world media, that content is attributed to William Luther Pierce, founder and leader of the National Alliance, who once wrote a pamphlet titled “Who Owns America.” Galtung merely referred to this material, but did not research or write it. MacDonald confirms this in a footnote link (footnote #45 on p. 85) in Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents which quotes Pierce verbatim in the conclusion.

Having discovered the original source material falsely attributed to Galtung, we can now understand Galtung’s fate. Referencing Pierce was more than enough to have Galtung condemned as an “anti-Semite,” regardless of how accurate Pierce’s research was. This is because Pierce is portrayed as a “Nazi,” “anti-Semite” of the worst kind, and “White supremacist,” making Galtung almost equally condemnable by association. In the lens of Jewish-influenced public opinion, whether any of these labels are accurate is irrelevant. In our opinion however, their accuracy is crucial.

In a previous essay, “Obscuring the Jewish Problem in Alt Media: An Example,” I examined an article by naturopathic doctor and holistic health advisor Dr. Joseph Mercola, mirrored by CHD, in which he identified a number of media organizations censoring and discrediting him as part of the effort to suppress “disinformation” on the covid pandemic generally and covid vaccines specifically. Children’s Health Defense reposts Mercola’s essays, since Mercola is forced to take down his articles from his own website within 48 hours in order to try and avoid the censorship plus defamation these media organizations inflict on him. In my analysis, Mercola and CHD do well in the essay to reveal the aggressive censorship and media distortion activities of such organizations as Publicis Groupe and Newsguard, but fail to identify the true nature of those who own and control such organizations, using them as weapons of censorship and defamation against Mercola and CHD: Jews.

Here I will conduct a basic analysis of Rebecca Strong’s recent article on the CHD website, claiming 90% of media is owned by 6 companies, in light of Pierce’s analysis of Jewish media control referenced indiscreetly but boldly by Galtung. Pierce’s analysis was first presented in 1995 according to MacDonald. It is past time to update our understanding of Jewish control of mass media today. We will look exclusively at the sources and references Rebecca Strong provides in her article itself. Just like Mercola and CHD when examining the media monsters censoring and defaming them, Strong too has the ability and insight to recognize the overwhelmingly Jewish ownership and operation of the media giants she examines—but will not.

We will. I will present this analysis in multiple parts, since Strong’s essay is admirably long and thorough (except for the key omission which we will explore).

Before we get to the article itself, in her “author’s note” Strong quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis: “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Brandeis was of course celebrated as the first Jewish appointee to the Supreme Court, and was certainly a member of that group that at least by the 1960s could be characterized as having “wealth concentrated in the hands of a few”—the American Jewish power elite, and an elite hostile to the traditional White majority.

Strong’s essay begins with a story of her first job in journalism at BostInno. Her first source is to BostInno’s new owner at the time, American City Business Journals, which is itself owned by Advance Publications. Curiously, ACBJ does not show its CEO on its website, only its Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and other executives, some of whom may be Jewish and some clearly not. The chokepoint of media control is found higher up, at Advance Publications. It was founded by a man going by the name Samuel Irving Newhouse, a benignly Gentile name, but whose real name was Solomon Isadore Neuhaus, Jewish, born of Jewish immigrants. The Neuhaus family continues in substantial ownership and operation of Advance today. Descendant of founder Solomon, Steven Newhouse (Neuhaus) is the current President and CEO, and past Presidents included Robert Sauerberg, also Jewish.

Ms Strong, whose profile picture shows her to be a fair-skinned blond Nordic type, next  displays a tweet listing a few major corporate media mergers as evidence for the claim she makes in the title. It would require a complete essay itself to explore the Jewish influence among the corporations named, but here we will look at only the larger firms swallowing the smaller ones, and only at the founders and top executives.

The first is the New York Times, originally purchased by the Jew Adolph Ochs and now well-known to be owned and operated by the Jewish Sulzberger family for well over a century. Its new Executive Editor will be Joseph Kahn, the fifth Jewish top Editor at the Times since 1964, covering almost the entire period until today. Next in the mergers and acquisitions list is BuzzFeed. Founder and CEO Jonah Perretti was born of a Jewish mother, making him Jewish. Peretti was also the founder of Huffington Post, now HuffPost, also consolidated under BuzzFeed ownership.

VOX (which claims it “explains the news”) is next in the “Great Media Consolidation” Strong features. According to the About Us section of VOX,  it was founded by three people, Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell and Matthew Yglesias. “Klein was raised in a Jewish family,” according to his Wikipedia Early Life entry. Bell appears to be non-Jewish, but Yglesias is three-quarters Jewish.

Next, Axel Springer SE is the largest publisher in Europe. It is majority owned by an investment firm known as KKR, whose main founder, Jerome Kohlberg, was Jewish, with other founders as his relatives. Founder of Axel Springer SE, Europe’s largest “digital and popular periodical publishing house,” a German by the same name, had a Jewish first wife. A full section on his Wikipedia entry titled Friend of Israel states “no German played a more significant role in the effort to repair his country’s burdened relationship with the Jews, and to ensure its support for their state, than Axel Springer.” Springer was an ardent philo-Semite. The penultimate corporation in Strong’s list is Dot Dash, which boasts “We are America’s largest digital and print publisher.” I did not engage in the tedium of researching the racial/religious identity of all twenty-eight members of Dot Dash’s Corporate Leadership team, but obvious possibilities include Michael Brownstein, President of Client Partnerships, and Andrew Gorenstein, President of Advertising and Partnerships. CEO Neil Vogel appears non-Jewish, and for once I could not find substantial ownership or operation of this media corporation as Jewish.

Last on the list of “The Great Media Consolidation” Strong presents is Minute Media. Its About Us page states: “Founded in Israel in 2011, Minute Media’s portfolio now consists of 6 global sports and entertainment brands…”

In her rather lengthy and admirably thorough (except for the Jewish Issue) essay, Strong develops an understanding of the great power media can have over key aspects of our society, and why it is dangerous to allow such power to be held in so few hands. She refers to this as “the CNN effect,” described as “by influencing consumers and investors, our current 24-hour real-time news cycle can impact our economic climate, driving the market values of certain industries and companies.” In her reference link, “the CNN effect” is partly defined by “‘media pervasiveness’ [that] had impacted upon government – particularly the process of foreign policy making … forcing policy-makers to respond to whatever issue journalists focused on.”

Obviously “the CNN effect” is a useful label to refer to the impact many major media corporations have on both the economy and government policy, in the same way Band Aid refers to many forms of wound dressings. But what about CNN itself? Until very recently, its President was Jeff Zucker. He resigned when a scandal revealed he had not disclosed an intimate affair with another CNN executive, and over violations of journalistic ethics when Zucker “advised governor Andrew Cuomo on how to respond to criticism’s (sic) of Cuomo made by Donald Trump.” A sex scandal and violations of journalistic ethics in a media executive is enough to identify Zucker as most likely Jewish, but his Wikipedia Early Life section confirms it.

The latest CNN President is Chris Licht, who appears to be not Jewish. It is interesting that so common is it to expect him to be that someone wrote an article titled “CNN Replaces Jeff Zucker With Chris Licht & Viewers Wonder If He Is Jewish.” The article states definitively “Chris Licht is not Jewish.,” but then asserts “There is no information regarding Chris Licht’s religion on the Internet,” and “Chris Licht has not disclosed his ethnicity on the Internet.” I concur, I could not find any definite information either. The author of this article does not give any reference for the claim Licht is not Jewish, so to me his identity remains unclear. It is telling that “viewers” and many others expect him to be Jewish.

The ownership of CNN is a complex matter at present. Currently CNN is owned by WarnerMedia (formerly Time Warner), which is owned by AT&T. AT&T is set to acquire Discovery this quarter, and then combine Discovery with WarnerMedia in a new company. This new Warner Bros Discovery company will own CNN.

Who are the people who own and operate CNN, however? Are they primarily Jews?  In part 2 we will examine the six companies Rebecca Strong claims controls 90% of media, to discover how much of that control is Jewish.

Strong invests some space in explaining why consolidating media control in so few companies is dangerous and alarming, and so “why you should care.” Let us look at a quote from as far back as 1918 expressing alarm over consolidation of power in a political apparatus, and apply the same warning to media ownership today:

“I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the War which is still raging, and unless as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another, over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”[1]

*   *   *

Strong’s essay was originally published on her own blog Down the Rabbit Hole with the title “The Monopoly On Your Mind, Part 1: Consolidation Craze & Illusion of Choice.” The subtitle reads: “Six companies control 90% of what you read, watch, and hear. Here’s why that’s dangerous.” CHD used her subtitle as the title, and changed “why that’s dangerous” to “why you should care.” I agree with Strong, such central control of mass media is dangerous, and that’s why we should care.

The essay details the ways in which legislation and regulations were changed to allow for the massive media consolidation we have today. This included deregulation in the 80s by Congress and the FCC, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the 2017 overturning of an FCC regulation limiting ownership of multiple media outlets in the same market. Another essay should be devoted to the Jewish presence in these deregulation efforts which led directly to mass consolidation. We should expect it to be similar to the Jewish presence in changing the nation’s immigration laws (p. 11ff), influencing gun control legislation, and others.

 

At the heart of Strong’s presentation are the six companies. She relies on an article written by Adam Levy (most likely Jewish) for The Motley Fool, which offers investment advice. The article is dated April 29, 2022. Here is where the “Big Six Media Companies” are listed: Comcast, Walt Disney, AT&T, Paramount Global, Sony, and Fox.

Comcast

Comcast is the largest cable provider in the world, after it acquired AT&T’s cable arm in 2000. President since 1990 and current Chairman and CEO of Comcast is Brian L Roberts. Among Roberts’ awards and philanthropy are “the 2004 Humanitarian Award from the Simon Wiesenthal Center,” “the 2002 Walter Kaitz Foundation Honoree of the Year for his commitment to diversity in the cable industry,” “the USC Shoah Foundation Institute’s 2011 Ambassador for Humanity Award,” and “The Aileen K. and Brian L. Roberts Foundation was one of the largest contributors to the restoration of the Alfred W. Fleisher Memorial Synagogue at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, named in the honor of his maternal grandfather.” According to his Wikipedia  Early Life, “Roberts was born into a Jewish family in Philadelphia.”

Significantly, “Roberts served as Chairman of NCTA (National Cable and Telecommunications Association) from 1995 to 1996, when the landmark deregulatory 1996 Telecommunications Act became law.” Here we see a clue to the Jewish influence on the deregulation which led directly to Roberts’ ability to acquire AT&T and build his media empire into one of the six largest. “The NCTA is one of the largest political lobbying organizations in the United States,” and no doubt had strong influence with the FCC over deregulation in 1996, when Roberts was the Chairman.

 

Comcast now owns or has ownership stake in NBCUniversal, Telemundo (16 stations), Vox, Buzzfeed and many others. Its media reach and influence is enormous and it is primarily owned and operated by a Jewish family.

A notable former executive at NBC, Ben Silverman, has had a career in media production at multiple companies, including some he founded himself. He produced such content as Date My Mom, and worked to release movies through a company owned by corrupt Hollywood sex offender Harvey Weinstein. Silverman is Jewish.

Walt Disney

Walt Disney was originally founded in the late 1920s by Walt and Roy Disney, who were Irish, German and English. Disney had a reputation as very conservative, patriotic (he cooperated with the House Un-American Activities Committee in its anti-communist investigations). And he was anti-Jewish—particularly singling out the Jewish movie studio heads. He also complained about the major studios having control over distribution and movie theaters, and he survived many attempts by the other studios to bankrupt or take over his company. However, after his death in 1966, Michael Eisner, a Jew, was named CEO in 1984. He held his leadership position until 2005, overseeing many mergers and acquisitions, including ABC, A&E and ESPN, along with Mirimax Films and others, thereby building Disney into the media monstrosity it is today. Eisner’s Disney leadership was plagued with controversy, and indeed the company was called “Monster Inc.” by The Independent, which stated “He’s been described as psychotic, greedy and soulless.” It also claimed Eisner “ousted” Walt’s nephew Roy Disney from the board, but the Disney Company’s Wikipedia entry says, “a surprising 45 percent of Disney’s shareholders, predominantly rallied by former board members Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, withheld their proxies to re-elect Eisner to the board.” Gold is Jewish.

During Eisner’s two decades at Disney, he appointed Michael Ovitz, also Jewish, President. Jeffrey Katzenberg, also Jewish, was Disney Studio Chairman under Eisner, but resigned and formed DreamWorks because Eisner would not appoint him to President, choosing Ovitz instead. The only question at Disney at this time was which Jews would dominate the top leadership positions, determined by the outcome of Jewish in-fighting.

After Eisner was forced to resign in September 2005, Robert Iger (also Jewish) took over as CEO. Also notable in 2005, the Weinstein brothers Bob and Harvey, founders of Miramax studios, left Disney to run their own movie company. Harvey is well-known now as a repeat sex offender. The Weinsteins are also well known to be Jews.

Iger would remain until 2020, and oversee acquisition of Pixar, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilms, 20th and 21st Century Fox, and others. During this time, in 2009 the last original Disney family member with active involvement in the company, Walt’s nephew Roy E Disney, died. That same year Disney Channel President Rich Ross, Jewish, was promoted to Chairman. Iger cut deals with Jewish media mogul Haim Saban for the sale of the PowerRangers and Digimon franchises.

In 2020 Robert Chapek became Disney CEO. I could not confirm Chapek’s racial/religious identity. Former Jew Milton Kapman, now known as Brother Nathaniel (convert to Orthodox Christianity) on his Real Jew News outlet denounces Chapek and others at Disney as Jewish, in his “Disney Decauches Your Children” video. Another Jew-watch outlet, zogathome, also identifies Chapek as Jewish in its “Who Controls Disney” management team list, but I see no citations from either source and could not find positive identification myself. Chapek’s mother’s funeral was held at a Catholic church, as was that of his father Bernard.

Other Jews among the Board of Directors and Executives at Disney include Alan Bergman, Safra Catz, Michael Froman and Jennifer Cohen. Collectively they bring significant influence to the immense media conglomerate of The Walt Disney Company, debasing it far from its original family-friendly, White European roots.

AT&T

Remarkably, among ten members of the AT&T Board of Directors, I could not identify a single Jew. Likewise among eleven top Executives, I see not a single Jew. CEO John Stankey appears to be White European descent. One Executive is “Latino,” three are blond women, and two are Black (probably with White admixture).

Institutional investors in AT&T are topped by Vanguard Group and Blackrock, each with over 500 million shares. They together own over 15% of AT&T. Blackrock’s founder and CEO is Larry Fink, Jewish, but Blackrock has significant stock ownership in almost every major corporation in the world and has been influential in promoting ESG—Environment, Social, Governance—which promotes liberal-left policies among the corporations it holds stock in and is essentially a way of getting liberal-left ideas, particularly regarding race and gender, enacted without voter input. In any case, a main source of Jewish influence now be via mechanisms such as the push for ESG in corporate governance.

Paramount Global

This media giant is composed of CBS, Viacom, MTV, Showtime and many other entertainment and media outlets. President and CEO of Paramount Global is Robert M Bakish, apparently non-Jewish. Another President and CEO of International Networks, Studios and Streaming is Raffaele Annecchino, not Jewish. Jewish executives at Paramount include Dan Cohen, Jonathan Karp, and David Nevins. Paramount shows twenty-six executives, so this is not an overwhelming Jewish presence. When we look to the Board of Directors, Candace K. Beinecke, Susan Schuman and Nichole Selligman appear to be Jews. Selligman “received national attention in the United States for her representation of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North during the Iran–Contra hearings, and of President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial.” She is married to Joel Klein, Jewish, who “was the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, the largest public school system in the United States.”

Jewish control of Paramount becomes clearer when we see the Chair of the Board is Shari Redstone. She is the grand-daughter of founder of National Amusements Michael Redstone (b. 1902, d. 1987; given name Max Rothstein). National Amusement now owns Paramount Global. Max Rothstein ostensibly changed his name to Redstone to disassociate himself from a Jewish organized crime boss named Arnold Rothstein. It is unclear whether they were related, though they are certainly members of the same tribe. Max became associated with another Jewish organized crime boss, Harry “Doc” Sagansky. They ran gambling rackets, night clubs and loan sharking operations. Max also used Sagansky loans to purchase and build drive-in theaters. The Israeli news outlet Haaretz glorifies this debased story, and identifies not the Jewish mob, but the Irish mob as working with Rothstein. However, one of the footnotes on Max’s Wikipedia page reveals an article about Sagansky that notes Max was a close associate of the Jewish crime boss. By 1959 Max formally established National Amusements “to consolidate the family’s ownership interests and make it easier to obtain financing.”

Max’s son Sumner worked for his father until Max’s death in 1987, when Sumner took over. Sumner oversaw the acquisitions of CBS, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, making National Amusements “one of the largest media conglomerates in the United States.” Multiple scandals involving CBS CEO Les Moonves (also Jewish) led to Moonves resigning under accusations of sexual harassment, sexual assault and abuse. Sumner also had ongoing disputes and in-fighting with CBS executive and eventual CEO, fellow Jew Mel Karmazin. Karmazin left National Amusements, deciding he could not co-exist with Sumner. Karmazin is known for establishing and promoting the grotesque soft-porn radio host Howard Stern, who is also Jewish. During this period, MTV was under National Amusements ownership and was accused of deliberately arranging the brief moment of public nudity during the 2004 Superbowl half-time show when Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed.

Sumner’s daughter Shari Rothstein became involved in National Amusements and engaged in contentious arguments with her father over the management of National Amusements and its holdings. In his will, Sumner bypassed Shari and left all his stock to his grandchildren. Shari is today listed as the owner since Sumner’s death in 2020. As we saw, she is the Chair of the Board of Directors of Paramount Global, exercising direct control from the top of the hierarchy. Shari married a Rabbi (now divorced) and one of her children, Tyler, attended the Maimonides School and became a Rabbi as well. They all work or worked for National Amusements.

Sony

It appears all executives and leadership positions at Sony Corporation, based in Tokyo Japan, are Japanese. Jews start to show up at top executive positions in Sony’s American affiliates, especially Sony’s entertainment operations. Sony Entertainment which oversees all of the American subsidiaries had Jews Michael Lynton as CEO and Nichole Seligman as President until 2017 and 2016 respectively.  Tom Rothman, Jewish, is CEO of Sony Motion Picture Group, with Josh Greenstein as Co-President. Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions department, which The Hollywood Reporter called “Sony’s surprising (sic) most profitable division,” shows Steve Bersch, undisclosed racial identity, as President.

Michael Helfand is Executive Vice President of Business Affairs, a veteran of over 30 years in the entertainment industry with many high-level executive positions including President and COO of Marvel Studios, Senior Vice President of Mirimax, and a founder of two movie production and financing studios, one aimed at youth. I found no clear confirmation of Helfant’s (alternate spelling) racial/religious identity, but another Michael Helfand “is an expert on religious law and religious liberty. He is currently is (sic) the Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law & Religion and…  Visiting Professor… at Yale Law School and Senior Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute.” This Helfand writes extensively for the Jewish journal Forward, and is confirmed as Jewish. By name association and chosen occupation, the Michael Helfand Vice President at Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions, is most likely Jewish.

It would take many pages to identify all the Jews in the Sony Corporation’s complex global structure and multiple sub-divisions, so let us end with a definite non-Jew who is President of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment division. Keith Le Goy is definitely not Jewish. I find it interesting that Le Goy was noted in my previous essay, Obscuring the Jewish Problem in Alt Media: An Example, as on the Board of Governors of the Los Angeles Paley Center which was censoring and defaming Dr. Joseph Mercola, as well as Children’s Health Defense for featuring Mercola’s writings. Recall at the beginning of this essay that it was Rebecca Strong’s essay, reposted by CHD, and its headline similarity to the analysis by Pierce as presented by Galtung, which inspired this current analysis of Jewish ownership and control of mass media.

Fox Corporation

Our final inquiry will be into the Fox Corporation. Its news reporting is either revered or reviled by those who choose one side of the engineered political divide (I choose third position). For clarity, recall that Disney bought some Fox assets and will still use the Fox name until 2024. What was left became the Fox Corporation in 2019, primarily TV news, business and sports broadcasting. Fox’s owners also own and operate News Corps, and we will examine it as well under the Fox section.

Founder and majority owner of Fox is Rupert Murdoch, 91. Murdoch inherited a small newspaper in Australia from his father in the early 50s, and after forming News Corp, by 2000 “owned over 800 companies in more than 50 countries, with a net worth of over $5 billion.” Murdoch’s ancestry is presented as mixed British Isles. Some accounts say Murdoch was funded by the Jewish banker family the Rothschilds, though this is unconfirmed. It did emerge in 2013 that Murdoch joined with Jacob Rothschild and others, including Dick Cheney, in investing in Genie Energy to drill for oil in the disputed Golan Heights region, currently occupied by Israel since its 1967 war with Syria. Murdoch’s son-in-law Matthew Freud is great-grandson of Sigmund Freud, Jewish.

Murdoch first acquired interest in 20th Century Fox in 1984, when he bought $250 million of stock owned by Marc Rich, Jewish hedge fund manager and financial criminal. This deal was brokered by Marvin Davis, Jewish, who at one time was majority owner of 20th Century Fox. Later Murdoch bought Davis’ stock. Murdoch bought six TV stations owned by Metromedia, founded by John Kluge, German, but whose CEO was Stuart Subotnick, Jewish. Murdoch bought a house in Beverly Hills from Jules Stein, founder of Music Corporation of America, Jewish. By 2005, Murdoch and News Corps bought Intermix Media, which held MySpace, gaming networks and other social media. Intermix was originally founded by Brad Greenspan, Jewish. A year prior to Murdoch’s purchase, Richard Rosenblatt, Jewish, became Intermix CEO.

This much at least can be gleaned from Murdoch’s biography. The current Executive Leadership at Fox Corporation show Rupert and his son Lachlan as Chairman and CEO, with Suzanne Scott, Joe Dorrego and Jay Wallace as top executives at Fox News Media. All are non-Jews. Jay is not related to the former well-known news anchorman Mike Wallace (Wallik), Jewish, married to Norma Kaphan, Jewish; their son Chris Wallace “was ranked as being one of the most trusted TV news anchors in America,” having worked at every major network including Fox. Of thirteen other executives Fox displays, I could not verify one of them is Jewish, including suspects John Fiedler and Jason Klarman.

Conclusion

Strong draws her claim in her subtitle that 90% of media content is controlled by six companies from Levy’s article at The Motley Fool, which states: “Some estimates claim as much as 90% of U.S. media is controlled by just six companies.” We don’t see a citation for where those estimates come from or who made them. The phrase “as much as” leaves a wide range of error. Likewise, the original William Pierce essay later attributed to Johan Galtung makes its claim to 96% Jewish world media ownership without presenting detailed calculations.

I have little idea how to calculate such a figure from my own current research presented here. Much more research remains to expose the Jewish presence in main media throughout the corporate hierarchies, funders, advertisers, management, content creators, public personalities and influencers. It would be simplistic to declare that Comcast, Disney, Paramount and aspects of Sony (American division) are Jewish, while AT&T and aspects of Fox (the Murdochs and executives) are not. Would that mean Jews own and operate at least 66% of media? I would never assert such a loose estimate in a title or subtitle.

It is clear that the Jewish presence in media ownership and operation is extensive, far beyond Jewish proportional representation in the US population at 2–3 percent. Jewish influence on media content and presentation of all kinds is strong and pervasive today, spreading a Jewish-dominated influence throughout the populations that consume such media. The trend over time has been overwhelmingly negative, bringing a perverse, degraded, materialistic and hedonistic decay as we have seen with some of the media scandals presented here. This is in contrast to the once relatively wholesome media content produced by such pre-Jewish outlets as Walt Disney and others. Sincere students can study the 86 articles on Jewish Influence and the 42 articles on Media Influence at The Occidental Observer to discern whether or to what extent this cultural degradation by Jews through media has been intentional.

As I asserted in my article examining the media attacks on Joseph Mercola and his response, also presented by Children’s Health Defense, I here assert that Rebecca Strong as mirrored again by CHD must have known of the Jewish ownership and control of the media she examines. She makes not one mention of Jews, though my analysis of the sources and citations she presents amounts to a penetrating grasp of the obvious. Like Mercola and CHD, Strong may choose to obscure the presence of Jewish power in media, as a form of self-preservation, or because like them she knows it can be futile and career-ending to present it.

It is not effective self-preservation in the end to avoid it. It is not futile. If an overwhelming influence over such a powerful tool of societal, political, economic and even spiritual control as mass media is being administered by Jews, we need to know and we need to say so. The battle for the minds and hearts of the world’s populations, and in our case the increasingly diverse populations of the US, depends significantly on media impacts. In our post-modern high-tech world, media is crucial. We have quality media not controlled by Jews, of which The Occidental Observer is only one among many. Knowledge that much main media is disgorged by Jews will only help to drive quality people away, and toward more honest, wholesome and positive media.


[1]          British White Paper, Russia No. 1, April 1919, M. Oudendyk, Netherlands Minister at St. Petersburg. This same quote and more of Oudendyk’s report on Bolshevism in Russia was included in a speech given by German Minister of Information Dr. Joseph Goebbels at the Seventh National Socialist Party Congress delivered at Nuremberg, September 13 1935.
Joseph Goebbels, Communism with the Mask Off and Bolshevism in Theory and Practice, Ostara Publications, 2013, ppg 24–5.